Perhaps we'd better stop taking the summary of the decision from rabid fundie christian blogs. Here's what the panel ordered:
Quote14. The Panel finds, and the Panel orders as follows:
a. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall cease publishing in newspapers, by email, on the radio, in public speeches, or on the internet, in future, disparaging remarks about gays and homosexuals. Further, they shall not and are prohibited from making disparaging remarks in the future about Dr. Lund or Dr. Lund's witnesses relating to their involvement in this complaint. Further, all disparaging remarks versus homosexuals are directed to be removed from current web sites and publications of Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.
b. That The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. and Mr. Boissoin shall, in future, be restrained from committing the same or similar contraventions of the Act.
c. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. provide Dr. Lund with a written apology for the article in the Red Deer Advocate which was the subject of this complaint.
d. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall request the Red Deer Advocate publish a copy this Order in the Red Deer Advocate and that they request their written apology for the contravention of the Act be published in the Red Deer Advocate.
e. That Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc. shall pay to Dr. Lund an award for damages, jointly and severally, in the amount of $5,000.00.
f. That Ms. Dodd shall provide a list of expenses incurred as a result of her testimony at the hearing to the Panel Chair for review and such sum shall be paid to her for her actual expenses associated with this matter up to the maximum amount of $2,000.00 as directed by the Panel Chair upon receiving her list of expenses. Such amounts so ordered by the Panel Chair shall be paid jointly and severally by Mr. Boissoin and The Concerned Christian Coalition Inc.
Nothing about renouncing his religion, and nothing other than do not publish hate speech (about which we have laws in Canada), and particularly not inciding hatred against the complainant (which is also a Criminal Code matter).
The section of the Code that was contravened was as follows:
QuoteDiscrimination Re: Publications, Notices
3(1) - No person shall publish, issue or display or cause to be published, issued or displayed before the public any statement, publication, notice, sign, symbol, emblem or other representation that
(a) Indicates discrimination or an intention to discriminate against a person or a class of persons, or
(b) Is likely to expose a person or a class of persons to hatred or contempt
because of the race, religious beliefs, color, gender, physical disability, mental
disability, age, ancestry, place of origin, marital status, source of income or family
status of that person or class of persons.
(2) - Nothing in this Section shall be deemed to interfere with the free expression of opinion on any subject.
The decision of the Tribunal was based on the contents of the letter and the question to be answered was whether it fell under section 3(2) or the earlier sections. The letter itself talked about declaring war on homo and bisexuals, and was, the tribunal found, an incitement to violence. Even in the US, there are limits to freedom of speech. Shouting fire in a crowded theatre is one of them. In Canada, inciting violence against enumerated groups is another limit.
One factor that was taken into account by the tribunal was the fact that no political remedies for their opposition to gays/bis and lesbians were suggested. It was simply a call to war.
In addition, Boissoin ran a youth centre and one of the youths who frequented the centre later beat a gay 17 year old boy, two weeks after the letter was published, and after Boissoin had been crowing about the response his letter was receiving. The usual practice at the youth centre was to bar youths who were involved in violence. Boissoin's response to this youth beating the gay youth was "God called him to be active with his beliefs."
So I, for one, am cheering the opinion. Not because I relish limitations on freedom of speech, but as Canadians, we have made a choice about where that line is and the tribunal upheld that choice. Gay/bi/trans kids in small towns have a right to feel safe and not be victimized by people with influence.
The decision is located here:
http://www.albertahumanrights.ab.ca/LundDarren113007Pa.pdfAnd there's a lovely quote from it too:
QuoteAlthough expression of religious opinion is strongly protected, this protection cannot be extended to shield [hate speech] simply because they are contained in the same message and the one is used to bolster the other. If that were the case, religious opinion could be used with impunity as a Trojan Horse to carry the intended message of hate...
The penalty portion of the decision is in a separate document. I've quoted it above. Can get link if anyone cares.
Dennis
